GDC2012 JMV Rotations

Understanding Rotations
Jim Van Verth Senior Engine Programmer, Insomniac Games jim@essentialmath.com
Introductions. Name a little misleading, as truly understanding rotations would require a deep understanding of group theory, which I honestly neither have, nor have time to present. So a better name might be
Understanding Rotation Formats

Jim Van Verth Senior Engine Programmer, Insomniac Games jim@essentialmath.com
Which isnt say I wont be covering other aspects of rotation, its just that that will be the primary focus of this talk.
Intro
Discuss

various rotation reps
Angle (2D), Euler angles/Axis-angle (3D) Matrix (2D & 3D) Complex numbers (2D), Quaternion (3D)
The order here is an attempt to compare similar formats across 2D and 3D.
Intro
Issues

to consider
# elements Concatenation Interpolation Rotation
Intro

Interpolating not as simple as position, but more important E.g. camera control
Store orientations for camera, interpolate Body location stored as point Joints stored as rotations
E.g. character animation

Intro
Orientation relative to reference frame
On the previous slide, I mentioned orientation and rotation. Throughout the talk I may use them interchangeably, and I want to make sure that the distinction between them is clear. Orientation refers to where the axes of the reference frame (or coordinate system) lie.
Intro
Orientation relative to reference frame
Those axes are relative to a fixed reference frame, marked in green in this diagram.
Intro
Orientation relative to reference frame Rotation changes object from one orientation to another
Rotation is the operation that takes us from one orientation to another one, represented here by the black arrow.
Intro
Orientation relative to reference frame Rotation changes object from one orientation to another Hence, represent orientation as a rotation
So, it is possible to represent orientation as a rotation from the reference frame, which is what we usually do.
Ideal Rotation Format

Represent degrees of freedom with minimum number of values Allow concatenations of rotations Math should be simple and efficient
concatenation interpolation rotation
So what do we look for in an ideal rotation format?
Topics

Angle (2D) Euler Angles (3D) Axis-Angle (3D) Matrix (2D) Matrix (3D) Complex number (2D) Quaternion (3D)
Topics

2D Angle
The simplest rotation format is just the angle between the original coordinate axes and the new ones. Its the same for x and y axes, so
2D Angle
To simplify things Ill just use the angle between the old and new x axes.
2D Angle
This angle can also be negative, btw.
2D Angle: Concatenation
Concatenation is very simple. If we rotate by an angle theta and then an angle phi
We can represent this by a single angle theta plus phi
Note: 2D rotation is commutative
Note that because addition is commutative, this concatenation is commutative, so rotating by phi first and then theta we get the same result.
And so we have the final rotation.
2D Angle: Interpolation
Blending between angles is just about as simple, but there are some gotchas to be aware of. So suppose we have a rotation theta and a rotation phi (a different phi than the previous one, in this case)
Q(,,t) =?
And we want to find a rotation between them, using an interpolation factor t that varies from 0 to 1.
Q(,,t) = (1-t)+t
This is pretty simple, we can just do a linear interpolation between theta and phi. This formula should seem familiar after Squirrels talk.
What if = 30 & = 390? Expect always same angle But (1-t)+t will vary from 30 to 390
However, as mentioned, there are gotchas. Suppose we have angles of 30 degrees and 390 degrees. These are the same rotation, but if we do a straight linear interpolation, well end up with angles between 30 and 390, when wed expect to not rotate at all.
Problem One: angles not well-formed Infinite # of values can represent one rotation: 30 = 390 = -330 Can constrain to [0,360) or [0, 2)
So thats one problem with angles: you can have an infinite number of values that represent one rotation. The simplest solution here is to just constrain the angles to a range, 0 to 360 or 0 to 2 pi if youre using radians.
2D Angle: Rotation
Idea: vector/point coordinates relative to coordinate frame Change in frame gives change of coordinates
How about rotation. Here things get a little more complicated, but not too bad. As the slide says, the coordinates that we use for both vectors and points are relative to the coordinate frame were using. So if we track how the frame changes, we can compute the new coordinates. Its all part of the magic of vector spaces or affine spaces in this case.
2D Angle: Rotation
So, returning to our original diagram, with both angles in this case.
2D Angle: Rotation
sin "
! !
cos"
sin "
cos" !
The original axes have coordinates (1,0) for the x axes and (0,1) for the y axes. Their length is one, so by trigonometry, we can easily compute the coordinates of the new axes relative to the new ones, namely (show) cos theta here and sin theta here. And the same for the y axes.
2D Angle: Rotation
( " sin # ,cos # )
sin "
(0,1)
(cos" ,sin " )
! !
cos"
sin "
(1,0)
cos" !
!
So our new coordinates are cos theta, sin theta for the x axis and -sin theta cos theta for the y-axis.
2D Angle: Rotation
( " sin # ,cos # )
(0,1)
(cos" ,sin " )
(1,0)
!
Simplifying, just to make it a little more clear.
2D Angle: Rotation
Point Point
in old frame ( x, y ) = x (1,0) + y (0,1) in new frame
R( x, y," ) = x (cos" ,sin " ) + y ( # sin " ,cos" ) = ( x cos" , x sin " ) + ( # y sin " , y cos " ) = ( x cos" # y sin " , x sin " + y cos " )
So as I mentioned, the coordinates that we use are relative to our current frame. So for a point x, y, this just means that we take x and multiply it by (1,0) and take y and multiply it by (0,1). That gives us x,y as we expect. For the new frame, we just take our original x, y and multiply by the new axes. So thats x times cos theta, sin theta, and y times -sin theta cos theta, which simplifies to this final result for our rotation equation.
2D Angle: Rotation
So
rotation of vector (x,y)
R( x, y," ) = ( x cos" # y sin " , x sin " + y cos " )

Problem two: have to calc sin and cos to rotate
!
So we derived our rotation formula, but as we can see, in order to compute this well have to compute a sin and cos, which is not always the fastest operation.
2D Angle: Summary

Compact (1 value) Concat easy (add) Interpolation doable Rotation not ideal Be careful of infinite values
Topics

So thats angles in 2D. Now were going to look at formats that use angles for 3D rotation. Well begin with Euler angles.
Euler Angles
Three
ordered rotations around orthogonal axes
o
Could
be world or local axes Order important! 3D non-commutative
y
Demo
Euler angles are just like single 2D angle, except that instead of rotating around a single (implied) axis, were rotating around 3 different axes. This follows from Eulers theorem that all 3D rotations can be represented by three ordered rotations, hence the name.
Euler Angles vs. Fixed Angles

Euler
angle - rotates around local axes Fixed angle - rotates around world axes Rotations are reversed
x-y-z Euler angles == z-y-x fixed angles
Often there are differences in terminology for these -- some people like to refer to Euler angles as those rotate only around the local axes of the object, while they refer to rotations around the world axes as fixed angles. They behave similarly - to get from one to the other you just reverse the rotation order. But often times youll just see both kinds referred to as Euler angles, so just be aware of which axes youre rotating around.
Euler Angle Issues

No
easy concatenation of rotations Still has interpolation problems Can lead to gimbal lock
Euler angles, despite being compact, have some serious problems that make it undesirable as a general rotation format. First, our easy addition of angles goes out the window with Euler angles. Secondly, our interpolation problems are even worse. Finally, when axes align after a series of rotations, we can end up with something called gimbal lock, where we lose one degree of freedom. Lets look at these problems in turn.
Euler Angle Concatenation

Can't
just add or multiply components Best way:

Convert to matrices Multiply matrices Extract euler angles from resulting matrix
Not
cheap
Euler Angle Interpolation

Example:

Halfway between (0, 90, 0) & (90, 45, 90) Lerp directly, get (45, 67.5, 45) Desired result is (90, 22.5, 90)
Can
use Hermite curves to interpolate

Assumes you have correct tangents
AFAIK,
slerp not even possible
Gimbal Lock
Euler/fixed
angles even less well-formed Different values can give same rotation Example with z-y-x fixed angles:
( 90, 90, 90 ) = ( 0, 90, 0 )
Why?
Rotation of 90 around y aligns x and z
axes Rotation around z cancels x rotation

Demo
Euler Angles

Good for interface Not so good for in-engine
So in summary: Euler angles -- avoid them!
Topics

So lets look at another 3D angle format and see if that works better for us: axis-angle.
Axis and Angle

Specify vector, rotate ccw around it Can interpolate, messy to concatenate
Euler also proved that any 3D rotation can be represented as a rotation around an arbitrary axis. So axis-angle is just as it sounds -- we specify an axis and how much were going to rotate around it, in a counterclockwise direction (right-hand rule). Im not going to spend a lot of time on axis-angle as it has its own brand of problems. Interpolation is pretty simple - you can just blend the axis and angle separately and get a reasonable result. However, concatenation is much the same as Euler angles -- you have to convert to a matrix (or another format, which well get to) -- concatenate, then convert back. In my opinion, its just not worth it.
Axis and Angle
Rotation
," ) = cos " # p + (1 $ cos " )(p r )r + sin " (r % p) R(p, r
However, it is convenient at times to be able to rotate something by an axis-angle representation, so heres the formula for that. As you can see, this is not the simplest operation either.
Axis and Angle

More of a transitional format I.e. convert to axis-angle, manipulate angle or axis, convert back
Well see an example of this with 3D matrices in a bit.
Topics

Ok, now were going to bounce back to 2D and consider a much nicer and (hopefully) familiar format, the matrix.
2D Matrix
Recall
( " sin # ,cos # )
(0,1)
(cos" ,sin " )
!
!
(1,0)
So going back to our original axis diagram, ! recall that our original axes change coordinates to these value.
2D Matrix
Idea: Bake new frame in matrix and multiply by vector to rotate Matrix represents transformation
The idea of a matrix is simple: we bake this new frame in the matrix, and then matrix multiplication will do the coordinate transformation for us. By the way, if you understand this -and I am going to go a bit fast on this, so I apologize -- but if you understand it, you can handle any transformation you need to compute. If you want one area of linear algebra to study that will help you be successful in computer graphics or even physics, this is it.
2D: Matrix
Change
in frame
(1,0) " (cos# ,sin # ) (0,1) " ( # sin $ ,cos$ )
Rotation matrix $ cos" ! & %# sin " !
sin " ' ) cos" (
(assumes row vectors)
!
So in the standard case, where were working with Euclidean frames, we dont need to do anything special, just drop the new frame in. Assuming that were using row vectors, that is, our multiplication order is from left to right, then were going to insert our new frame in as the rows of the rotation matrix.
2D: Matrix
Change
in frame
(1,0) " (cos# ,sin # ) (0,1) " ( # sin $ ,cos$ )
sin " ' ) cos" (
!
Just to make it more clear, our first row is the same as our new x-axis
2D: Matrix
Change
in frame
(1,0) " (cos# ,sin # ) (0,1) " ( # sin $ ,cos$ )
sin " ' ) cos" (
!
And the second row is the same as the new y-axis.
2D Matrix: Rotation
[x
$ cos " y ]& % # sin "
sin " ' ) = [ x cos" # y sin " cos " (
x sin " + y cos" ]
And multiplying it out, we get the same result as before from our angle formula.
2D Matrix: Concatenation
$ cos" & %# sin " sin " '$ cos * )& cos" (% # sin * sin * ' $ cos(" + * ) )=& cos * ( %# sin(" + * ) sin(" + * ) ' ) cos(" + * ) (
Concatenation also uses multiplication, but this time were multiplying two rotation matrices together. After multiplying and using some trigonometric identities to simply, we can see that we get the result we expect: the angle in the new matrix is just the sum of the original two angles. Note again that the multiplication order doesnt matter here because were doing 2D rotation. That wont be the case when we get to 3D.
2D Matrix: Interpolation
Lerp
values:
" 1 0% "0 (1% " 0.5 (0.5% 0.5$ ' + 0.5$ ' =$ ' # 0 1& #1 0 & # 0.5 0.5 &
isnt a rotation matrix! ! Need Gram-Schmidt orthonormalization

So rotating a vector and concatenating rotations are fairly nice. What about interpolation. Well, here things start to fall apart. If we take these two rotation matrices: one with no rotation and the other a rotation of negative 90 degrees, and try to do a linear interpolation between them, we get a bad result. The resulting row vectors are not unit length, so this is not a rotation matrix. Now, we can do Gram-Schmidt orthonormalization to solve this problem, but it doesnt solve all of our problems.
Result
2D: Matrix
Lerp
values:
# 0 "1& # 0 1& #0 0& 0.5% ( + 0.5% ( =% ( 1 0 " 1 0 $ ' $ ' $ 0 0'
Not
even a valid affine transformation
!
For example, interpolating from a rotation of negative 90 degrees to a rotation of positive 90 degrees, gives us an extremely bad matrix. So what can we do about this?
Example
Lets take a look at whats going on here, by examining where the axis vectors go. So here are the frames for two possible rotations, the red being about a rotation of -45 degrees, the blue being a rotation of about positive 90 degrees.
Example
And suppose we want to interpolate between them.
Look
at just x-axis
To simplify things, lets just look at the x-axis.
Lerp
If we linearly interpolate between the two x-axes, thats basically just drawing a line from vector tip to vector tip
Lerp
And picking points along the line. Here Ive spaced them out at t values of 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4. Note that they are clearly shorter than our original vectors, so theyre no longer unit length. Now, we could do our orthonormalization process, which would make these vectors unit length again.
Lerp, extended to unit length
And here we see the result of that. However, now we have another problem.
But
equal time != equal spacing
Note that along the line, the vectors are equally spaced, but along the rotation arc theyre not. What wed really like is that as we move in time, using our interpolant t, that our rotation would move equally as well.
Subdivide
arc, not line
Spherical
linear interpolation, or slerp
So heres a diagram showing that -- note that now the arc of rotation is now subdivided equally. This is called spherical linear interpolation, or (as Ken Shoemake says, because its fun): slerp.
Idea: compare position operations to orientation
Be
x + y " xy x # y " xy #1 ax " x a
careful of order! (important for 3D)
!
So how can we compute slerp? One way to think about this -and for any mathematicians in the audience this is admittedly not a formal proof, but perfectly appropriate -- we can take the operations we use for linear interpolation and take them up one level to get the appropriate operations for rotation matrices. Then we can use this to convert our linear interpolation formula to a spherical linear interpolation formula. So where we would add two angles, we multiply two matrices. Where we would subtract one angle from another, we multiply by the matrix inverse. And where we would scale an angle, we instead take the rotation matrix to the same power.
Apply to lerp
x + y " xy x # y " xy #1 ax " x a
( x1 " x 0 ) t + x 0
Gives slerp formula
(M1M 0 "1 ) t M 0
!
Apply this to our lerp formula, we get the following slerp ! formula. And as I mentioned on the previous slide, this order is important -- while any order is reasonable for 2D rotations because (all together now) theyre commutative, this is not the same for 3D rotations. However, both of these slides do bring up a question.

But what is M t ? General: Taylor series 2D rotation simpler:

t ( M ) ! " = M t"
(M1M 0 "1 ) t M 0
What is M to the t? For general matrices, this is just a function, and you can compute an approximation by using a Taylor series expansion (Gino will say more about Taylor series in the next talk). However, in our case were only considering rotation matrices, so the answer is much simpler. All you need to do is pull the angle out of the matrix, multiply it by t, and generate a new matrix for that angle.
Process:

Compute Then
M = M1M 0
"1
(M1M 0 "1 ) t M 0
Finally
" = atan2(M 0,1, M 0,0 )
!
!
M t" M 0
So the process is just this. Note that M0,1 is sin theta, and m0,0 is cos theta, so we can take the arc tangent to get the correct angle.
An alternative (only for 2D):

Lerp the first row Renormalize Rotate 90 degrees to get the second row Build new matrix But need to correct for time (discuss later)
Blend multiple matrices, e.g. skinning

Maya gives you weights, just lerp Can use De Castlejaus Algorithm w/slerp Alternative: dual quaternions
2D Matrix: Recap

Rotation: fast Concatenation: fast Lerp/slerp: unwieldy Also: 4 values to represent 1 d.o.f.
Topics

3D: Matrix
Much

the same as 2D matrix
Map transformed axes, store as rows of matrix Rotate via vector-matrix mult Concatenate via matrix-matrix multiplication (but no longer commutative)
Lerp

same problems as before
9 values to interpolate dont interpolate well
Slerp
even harder to compute
t (M( r ) = M( r ," ) , t" )
3D Matrix: Summary
Workhorse of 3D graphics Great for rotation and concatentation (especially w/vector processors) Inconvenient for interpolation
Topics

2D: Complex Numbers

Review:
a + bi
where
i = "1
!
!
But
ignore that imaginary crap
2D: Complex Numbers
First important bit

Imaginary
a + bi
b
!
Real
2D: Complex Numbers
Second important bit

( a + bi)(c + di) = ( ac " bd ) + (bc + ad )i
Another way to think of it

( a, b)" (c, d ) = ( ac # bd, bc + ad )
2D: Complex Numbers
Suppose: restrict to unit length

Imaginary
cos" + sin "i sin "
" !
Real
Also
! written as cos" + i sin " = e i" !
cos"
2D: Complex Numbers

Multiply general complex number by unit one
( x + yi)(cos" + sin "i) = ( x cos " # y sin " ) + ( x sin " + y cos " )i
Look familiar? Gives us rotation
2D: Complex Numbers
Concatenation
(cos" + sin "i)(cos # + sin #i) = (cos(" + # )) + (sin(" + # ))i
2D: Complex Interpolation

Lerp
similar, but can normalize (nlerp)
Lerping our complex numbers is much like matrixes, except in this case each arrow represents an entire complex number instead of just the x-axis of a matrix. So rather than doing the full orthonormalization process we can just perform our linear interpolation and then just do one normalization operation. This is often called nlerp. That said, the same problems still remain with non-equal subdivision of our rotation arc, so lets look at slerp again.
Slerp
Want to find qt
q1 qt t q0
In generating a formula for slerp with complex numbers we can take a different approach than with matrices. Suppose we have two complex numbers q0 and q1 and we want to blend between them. The angle between them is alpha, and we want to find the complex number thats alpha t between the two.
Slerp
q" 1
Create basis
q1 qt t q0
Suppose we can find a perpendicular to q0 based on q1 -well just call that q1. That gives us a coordinate frame..
Slerp
q" 1
Generate coords
q1 qt t q0
sin "t
cos "! t
And we can use this frame to generate coordinates for our new q_t. As before, the distance along the q0 axis is just cos ! the q1 axis is sin alpha t. alpha t, and the distance along
Complex Number Interpolation
Slerp
q" 1
Then
q1 qt t q0
qt = cos "tq0 + sin "tq1 # ! !
sin "t
cos "! t
So for an arbitrary q0 and q1, our slerped complex number is this.
Finding q" 1
In 2D can do
q0"
q" 1
q1 qt t q0
!
!
That leaves one open question: how to we compute this q1? Well, in 2D we can just rotate q0 90 degrees to get the perpendicular.
Finding q" 1
q" 1
In general, q1 # (q0 q1 )q0 q1 "= q1 # (q0 q1 )q0 Simplifies to
q1 qt t q0
!
!
q" 1 =
q1 # cos $q 0 sin 2 $
But lets consider the general case -- this will be useful when we get to quaternions. We can compute this by projecting q1 onto q0, subtracting the result from q1, and then normalizing. This is just one step in Gramm-Schmidt orthonormalization. For the case of our unit complex numbers (or any unit vector, for that matter), this just simplifies to this.
Slerp
Combine qt = cos "tq0 + sin "tq1 #

q" 1 = q1 # cos $q 0 sin 2 $!
q" 1
q1 qt t q0
!
!
Get
qt = sin(1 " t )# sin t# q0 + q sin # sin # 1
Combining our two formulas together we get the following,
Slerp

q" 1 = q1 # cos $q 0 sin 2 $!
q" 1
q1 qt t q0
!
!
Get
which is our final slerp formula.
Slerp

q" 1 = q1 # cos $q 0 sin 2 $!
q" 1
q1 qt t q0
"1 Same as: qt = q0 (q0 q1 ) t
!
!
Get
Btw, it can be shown that this gives the same !result as our other slerp formula. However, this one is more practical to compute.
2D Complex Interpolation
Slerp not ideal

qt =

sin(1 " t )# sin t# q0 + q sin # sin # 1
Computing , sin , sin t slow Numeric error as 0
Also, depending on how we calculate alpha, this can be noncommutative as well, I.e. slerping from q0 to q1 is not the same as slerping from q1 to q0 -- you end up going different ways around the circle. That said, most implementations assume that alpha is greater than 0, which will make it commutative.
Faster Slerp
Lerp
is pretty close to slerp Just varies in speed at middle Idea: can correct using simple spline to modify t (adjust speed) From Jon Blows column, Game Developer, March 2002 Lerp speed w/slerp precision
Demo
Faster Slerp

In practice, we have small angles nlerp alone may well be good enough
Complex Numbers
Note:
complex multiplication is commutative, as is 2D rotation
Complex Numbers
Half-angle form
q = (cos(" /2) + sin(" /2)i)
Then rotation could be

Rot(p," ) = qpq
!
Still
unit length
Complex Numbers: Half Angle

Oddity:
negatives apply same rotation

Imaginary
cos" /2 + sin " /2i

" /2
Real
" cos# /2 " sin # /2i
!
!
Complex Numbers: Half Angle

Semi-circle
rep. all rotations
Imaginary
cos" /2 + sin " /2i

" /2
Real
" cos# /2 " sin # /2i
!
!
Complex Numbers: Summary

In
practice not used all that often Not sure why -- probably because angles are simple enough
Topics

What is a Quaternion?
Created
as extension to complex numbers
becomes
Can Or
rep as coordinates
scalar/vector pair
What is Rotation Quaternion?

Unit
quat is rotation representation
also avoids f.p. drift
Why 4 values?
One
way to think of it: 2D rotation ->

One degree of freedom
Unit
complex number ->

One degree of freedom Three degrees of freedom
3D
rotation -> quaternion ->

Three degrees of freedom
Unit
What is Rotation Quaternion?

Unit
quat (w, x, y, z) w represents angle of rotation y, z from normalized rotation axis ^ r ^ (x y z) = v = sin(/2)r Often write as (w,v) In other words, modified axis-angle
x,
w = cos(/2)
Creating Rotation Quaternion

So
for example, if want to rotate 90 around z-axis:

Another

example
Have vector v1, want to rotate to v2 Need rotation vector ^ r, angle

r v1 v2
Plug into previous formula
Thats gives a particular solution. But suppose we want to generate a quaternion a little more programmatically. A case that comes up often is that we have a vector pointing in one direction, and we want to generate a quaternion that will rotate it to a new direction. One way we might think of doing this is just take the cross product to get our axis of rotation r, then take the dot product of the normalized vectors, and take the arccos of that to get the angle, and plug the result into the quaternion.

From
Game Gems 1 (Stan Melax) Use trig identities to avoid arccos

Normalize v1, v2 Build quat
More stable when v1, v2 near parallel
In most cases that will work, but there are some problems when v1 and v2 are pointing pretty much the same direction. Stan Melax has a great solution for this, which is to normalize v1 and v2, compute these quantities r and s, and then plug into the quaternion as follows.
Multiplication
More
complex (har) than complex Take q0 = (w0, v0) q1 = (w1, v1)
Non-commutative:
So that provides a way to create a quaternion. Suppose we want to concatenate them. As with matrices and complex numbers, multiplication does the trick. However, in this case the multiplication operator is a little more complicated. Still, its all simple vector math, so it isnt too bad. Note again that due to the cross product this is non-commutative.
Identity and Inverse

Identity

quaternion is (1, 0, 0, 0)
applies no rotation remains at reference orientation
q-1
is inverse
q . q-1 gives identity quaternion
Inverse
is same axis but opposite angle
Computing Inverse
(w,
v)-1 = ( cos(/2), sin(/2) . ^ r)
Only
true if q is unit i.e. r ^is a unit vector
Vector Rotation
Have
vector p, quaternion q Treat p as quaternion (0, p) Rotation of p by q is q p q-1 Vector p and unit quat (w, v) boils down to
Possible to show that this formula is the same as the rotation formula for axis and angle.
Vector Rotation (contd)

Why does q p q-1 work? Similar to complex w/half angle:

first multiply rotates halfway and into 4th dimension second multiply rotates rest of the way, back into 3rd
See references for more details
Vector Rotation (contd)

Can
concatenate rotation
q1 (q0 p q0-1) q1-1 = (q1 q0) p (q1 q0)-1

Note
multiplication order: right-to-left
Quaternion Interpolation
As with complex numbers
Lerp
qt = (1 " t )q0 + tq1
Slerp
Quaternion Interpolation

Technique used depends on data Lerp generally good enough for motion capture (lots of samples)
Need to normalize afterwards Blows method for simple interpolation (Also need to normalize)
Demo
Slerp only needed if data is sparse

These days, Blow says just use lerp. YMMV.
Interpolation Caveat
and q rotate vector to same place But not quite the same rotation q has axis r, with angle 2- Causes problems with interpolation (different hemispheres)
q r w 2 -r v
This is due to the half-angle form of quaternions.
Interpolation Caveat

How to test? If dot product of two interpolating quats is < 0, takes long route around sphere Solution, negate one quat, then interpolate Preprocess to save time
As mentioned
Operation Wrap-Up
Multiply to concatenate rotations Addition only for interpolation (dont forget to normalize) Be careful with scale
Quick rotation assumes unit quat Dont do (0.5 q) p Use lerp or slerp with identity quaternion
Summary

Talked about orientation Formats good for internal storage

Angle Matrices (2D or 3D) Quaternions Euler angles Axis-angle
Formats good for UI

Complex numbers not really used
References

Shoemake, Ken, Animation Rotation with Quaternion Curves, SIGGRAPH 85, pp. 245-254. Shoemake, Ken, Quaternion Calculus for Animation, SIGGRAPH Course Notes, Math for SIGGRAPH, 1989. Hanson, Andrew J., Visualizing Quaternions, Morgan Kaufman, 2006. Blow, Jonathan, Hacking Quaternions, Game Developer, March 2002. Busser, Thomas, PolySlerp: A fast and accurate polynomial approximation of spherical linear interpolation (Slerp), Game Developer, February 2004. Van Verth, Jim, Vector Units and Quaternions, GDC 2002. http://www.essentialmath.com

GDC2012 JMV Rotations

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

GDC2012 JMV Rotations

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Understanding Rotations

Jim Van Verth Senior Engine Programmer, Insomniac Games jim@essentialmath.com

Understanding Rotation Formats

various rotation reps

# elements Concatenation Interpolation Rotation

E.g. character animation

Ideal Rotation Format

concatenation interpolation rotation

So what do we look for in an ideal rotation format?

This angle can also be negative, btw.

We can represent this by a single angle theta plus phi

Note: 2D rotation is commutative

And so we have the final rotation.

(cos" ,sin " )

(cos" ,sin " )

in old frame ( x, y ) = x (1,0) + y (0,1) in new frame

rotation of vector (x,y)

R( x, y," ) = ( x cos" # y sin " , x sin " + y cos " )

ordered rotations around orthogonal axes

be world or local axes Order important! 3D non-commutative

Euler Angles vs. Fixed Angles

x-y-z Euler angles == z-y-x fixed angles

Euler Angle Issues

Euler Angle Concatenation

just add or multiply components Best way:

Euler Angle Interpolation

use Hermite curves to interpolate

slerp not even possible

( 90, 90, 90 ) = ( 0, 90, 0 )

Rotation of 90 around y aligns x and z

axes Rotation around z cancels x rotation

Good for interface Not so good for in-engine

So in summary: Euler angles -- avoid them!

Axis and Angle

Axis and Angle

Axis and Angle

Well see an example of this with 3D matrices in a bit.

(1,0) " (cos# ,sin # ) (0,1) " ( # sin $ ,cos$ )

Rotation matrix $ cos" ! & %# sin " !

sin " ' ) cos" (

(assumes row vectors)

(1,0) " (cos# ,sin # ) (0,1) " ( # sin $ ,cos$ )

Rotation matrix $ cos" ! & %# sin " !

sin " ' ) cos" (

(assumes row vectors)

(1,0) " (cos# ,sin # ) (0,1) " ( # sin $ ,cos$ )

Rotation matrix $ cos" ! & %# sin " !

sin " ' ) cos" (

(assumes row vectors)

$ cos " y ]& % # sin "

sin " ' ) = [ x cos" # y sin " cos " (

x sin " + y cos" ]

isnt a rotation matrix! ! Need Gram-Schmidt orthonormalization

even a valid affine transformation

And suppose we want to interpolate between them.

To simplify things, lets just look at the x-axis.

Lerp, extended to unit length

equal time != equal spacing

arc, not line

linear interpolation, or slerp

x + y " xy x # y " xy #1 ax " x a

careful of order! (important for 3D)

x + y " xy x # y " xy #1 ax " x a

Gives slerp formula